I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the man was like that before. But seriously, is there anything left he hasn't flip-flopped on ? Do his last supporters just like seeing him as president, whatever he says and does ?

I'm tired already of hearing about him almost everyday in the news, when he's the president of another country and mine is in the middle of a game changing presidential election, that could have more impact on the world that Trump's election. In my car I listen to a business radio and analysts are lost for words. For months and years he excruciates Yellen, you wonder if he wasn't calling for his supporters to murder her, now he wants to keep her ? Really ?

He tells Europe NATO is old and dead, spend money on defense yourself (something I agree with), Germany answers "dream on", and now NATO is the best thing since sliced bread ?

China is raping us, protectionism is the way to go, I will tear up all free trade deals, etc., now all that is forgotten ?

Has the man any self-esteem, doesn't he realize he's seen as a buffoon ?

Man, you've got the job, can't you drop the act and try and earn some respect ?

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

I'm tired already of hearing about him almost everyday in the news, when he's the president of another country and mine is in the middle of a game changing presidential election, that could have more impact on the world that Trump's election.

3rd Law of Trump: For every Trump position, there is an equal and opposite Trump position.

Or said another way, Trump has no particular principles, doctrines, or moral compass and instead does whatever gains the loudest applause at any given moment. Which tons of conservatives realized 18 months ago.

I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.

The first thing to note about President Trump is that he is a negotiator. Most people forget that, despite the fact that he literally wrote the book on negotiation, and so much of his campaign and techniques are simple negotiation 101. Once you realize this, so much of his craziness seems like part of a plan. And considering his success, it obviously is.

The press also wants to paint a perception of him that is an oafish buffoon who can barely put his own pants on right, never mind make billions of dollars and be elected POTUS. That isn't to say that he doesn't get things wrong, doesn't misjudge things, or doesn't needlessly rub a lot of people the wrong way, but considering the track record of the media vs the track record of President Trump, it is quite clear who we should be trusting: 0 major newspaper endorsements and an 8% winning prediction at the start of election night; or billions of dollars and winning states that weren't even considered in play.

And then take into account what Trump supporters call "4D Chess" - a clear set of steps the administration takes to draw attention to certain topics and catch the opposition in a lie. Let's go through a few examples:

- Tax returns: refuses to release them again and again, builds up a furor over claims he doesn't pay a penny, then a left-wing pundit releases one months later and shows that President Trump paid the highest percentage of any candidate. Those chasing the tax story now look foolish.

- Wiretapping: tweets that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. Media leaps on him, calling it unproven and false, wondering what he's smoking. Then the story shifts to why Nunes talked to him (despite there apparently being nothing to talk about), then it shifts to Susan Rice, and now it's all but confirmed that GCHQ did collect data and pass it over, as claimed by Andrew Napolitano weeks prior. How did we get from "unproven" to confirming exactly what Trump allies and supporters were saying?

- Microwaves: Kellyanne Conway says microwaves can be used to spy on people. Gets laughed out of the room. CIA Vault 7 leaks show how nearly any network connected device, including Smart TVs and refrigerators, all smart phones, etc. are capable of being used to monitor individuals without any knowledge.

Now, when it comes to softening positions, that's part of the negotiations. Come out strong, then haggle down to a comfortable middle ground. Sure, you can go out and start a trade war with China, which will hurt everyone, or you can negotiate and get your coal from WV sold to China, which employs working class people in an otherwise impoverished region and harms a rogue state (NK). Likewise, you show that you are willing to flex where required and keep your cards close to your chest.

Also note that especially during the transition when people were flooding in and out of Trump Tower, even former opponents and critics spoke highly of him after the meetings. He smoothed things over with figures like Mitt Romney, Steve Harvey, Ted Cruz, Tulsi Gabbard, all of whom have spoken against the man in the past, but now say their meetings were constructive and that he listened to their viewpoints and respected them.

That isn't to say I agree with his policies or that I feel his tactics are the most effective, the most inclusive, or that he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth more than the average bear, but make no mistake, no matter what the news says: there is a method to the man's madness, and he knows what he is doing. If he is flip-flopping, its likely as part of a negotiation or to take a small defeat now in favour of a big victory down the road. If he sounds dumb, it's possible it's because he's playing the long con. And his track record has been a lot better than those denouncing him and predicting his demise.

The first thing to note about President Trump is that he is a negotiator. .

You are being sarcastic, right? If he has proven one thing since he took office, then it is that the average preschooler could pull him over the table in a negotiation.

and now it's all but confirmed that GCHQ did collect data and pass it over,

Only that never happened. GCHQ never wiretapped Trump or his campaign. What you are falling for is spin control, trying to spin the fact that Trump campaign people did get caught calling wiretapped people that usually only traitors would call, into proof for made up allegations.

- Microwaves: Kellyanne Conway says microwaves can be used to spy on people. Gets laughed out of the room. CIA Vault 7 leaks show how nearly any network connected device, including Smart TVs and refrigerators, all smart phones, etc. are capable of being used to monitor individuals without any knowledge.

please provide the list of all internet enabled microwave ovens available in the United States as of last year, thank you.All of those hacks afaik required physical access to the device, so Vault 7 proofs that Trump wasn´t spied on via Microwaves. Unless you want to claim that there was an illegal break in.

- Tax returns: refuses to release them again and again, builds up a furor over claims he doesn't pay a penny, then a left-wing pundit releases one months later and shows that President Trump paid the highest percentage of any candidate. Those chasing the tax story now look foolish.

Only that about any sane person assumes he leaked those pages himself, and that those are just the best tax return during all of his career that he could find. For journalists this PR stunt of his, the only thing he seems even beginners competent in doing aside of lying, makes it only more interesting to look into his tax returns. If just few pages are good for him, anything else must be pure gold scoop wise.

He is actually such a terrible GOP president, that him being a democrat party plant to once and for all get rid of the republicans is much, much more likely that there is any coherent plan behind what he is doing.

But then there are Trump fans that believe the most obvious lies, so Trump probably could make everyone happy by claiming he build the wall to Mexico, because you and other Trump fans would believe it and the tax payer would save billions of US$.

I just read yesterday Melania is hating the lifestyle and stays put in New York almost like a recluse, stopped going to pick and drop the kid from school as well, isnt doing any of the first lady stuff with visting dignitaries, did so with great difficulty with the Japanese PM's wife but only because it was at home in Florida and hated every moment of it.

Melania is a text book introvert, someone who enjoys being a homebody. It's been hard for her to adjust. Donald knew that and has Ivanka entertaining. sooner people accept her for who she is the better.

Last edited by DLFREEBIRD on Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mham001 : you're probably right, I wanted to see if there was someone left to defend Trump, I guess, but I should rather discuss the French election (which I'm doing on a French forum).

opethfan wrote:

Now, when it comes to softening positions, that's part of the negotiations. Come out strong, then haggle down to a comfortable middle ground. Sure, you can go out and start a trade war with China, which will hurt everyone, or you can negotiate and get your coal from WV sold to China, which employs working class people in an otherwise impoverished region and harms a rogue state (NK). Likewise, you show that you are willing to flex where required and keep your cards close to your chest.

This is an answer to one of my points, the rest not so much. Are you seriously saying that the US will sell coal to China ?

I agree that you don't want a trade war with China. I have no problem if Trump changes all his crazy policies to reasonable ones. But the way he's doing it is surprising, don't you think ? A typical "negotiator" should sugarcoat things, or distract you somehow. Instead he reverses 3 major policies in 1 interview !

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

He tells Europe NATO is old and dead, spend money on defense yourself (something I agree with), Germany answers "dream on", and now NATO is the best thing since sliced bread ?

He didn't say that NATO is "the best thing since sliced bread", just that it is "no longer obsolete". Trump's main objection to NATO was based on the fact that other member states fail to pay their fair share. Secretary Mattis, Vice-President Pence and others have continued to promote this policy. It seems Jens Stoltenberg agrees with President Trump on this point. So now NATO and the United States are working towards achieving Trump's goal, he doesn't need to speak in such stinging terms.

Trump's main objection to NATO was based on the fact that other member states fail to pay their fair share. Secretary Mattis, Vice-President Pence and others have continued to promote this policy. It seems Jens Stoltenberg agrees with President Trump on this point. So now NATO and the United States are working towards achieving Trump's goal, he doesn't need to speak in such stinging terms.

Actually, the Germans have told him to piss off and they are the only ones who actually could pony up significantly more. Yet he seems to be OK with NATO these days.

My understanding is that Trump's main reason in the past for slandering NATO was that NATO's reason for existence was to hold Russia in check, or as it is currently, to hold Putin in check. Trump seems to be singing a different song about Putin/Russia lately, if this is a sincere change of view on his part, that would go a long way towards explaining his shift on NATO.

It is possible that Trump's shift of views on Putin/Russia are sincere. I'm sure the world looks much different from the White House than it did from Trump Tower. Also, I'm sure that he has had a lot of things explained to him that he never bothered to inform himself about before.

My understanding is that Trump's main reason in the past for slandering NATO was that NATO's reason for existence was to hold Russia in check, or as it is currently, to hold Putin in check. Trump seems to be singing a different song about Putin/Russia lately, if this is a sincere change of view on his part, that would go a long way towards explaining his shift on NATO.

You could be right. If candidate-Trump didn't see Russia as a particular threat, then NATO would appear to be just another expense. However, if, as you suggest, he is starting to view Russia in a different light, he might be far more willing to support an organization which prevents Russian expansion. It makes sense - I guess we'll have to wait a while longer to decide whether this is a long or short term shift in opinion though.

Melania is a text book introvert, someone who enjoys being a homebody.

Melania is a text book trophy wife. One who sold her looks for money and power.

Not that I want to be mean to her. I actually like her, she seems a decent enough person, at least compared to her husband, but you can see the telltale signs of a dysfunctional relationship there, one where the 2 have very little in common, and I believe this is why all the spotlights are making Melania very uncomfortable and somewhat shameful about the true nature of their union being exposed to the World.

It's a shame, she could be a great first lady.

Anyhow, back to her husband. It seems clear what is happening.

His populist rhetoric is slowly being confronted to the realities of the World and, surprise surprise, they don't have a place in the real World...The relief here is that at least even he is smart enough to admit to himself that what he said was wrong and that he is maleable enough to listen to some degree of reason.

There's 2 scenarios. He either actually believed all that crap he was feeding his screaming fans and is only now realizing that none of it made any sense, or he knew all along and just used it to wow the weak-minded into voting for him.Either way... it's worrying.Not that this seems to bother his fans, who adore him when he says white one day and adore him when he says black the next day.

The joys of a having a self-serving populist government.

I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.

One thing to keep in mind is that every new president/prime minister of any country goes through a certain trial and error period as he/she adjusts to the realities of being office. Love him or hate him, Mr.Trump, in all fairness, is going to need time to get up and running as President.

4 years tops and in two years time he won't be able to get anything done, not having a majority anywhere left. Not that he does accomplish anything now, failed president that he is. Has there ever been a less effective president?

ISIS defeated within 30 days.....

Every single campaign promiss broken or failed. But hey, at least he is making George Bush jr. Look smart and educated.

Actually, the Germans have told him to piss off and they are the only ones who actually could pony up significantly more. Yet he seems to be OK with NATO these days.

I do have the feeling that the US government was informed via side channels that being a sovereign country we could just stop paying for US troops present in Germany or that we could insist the the US reimburses the German government for some 42 years of construction costs that the USA has a contractual obligation to pay, but that Germany never enforced.

Actually, the Germans have told him to piss off and they are the only ones who actually could pony up significantly more. Yet he seems to be OK with NATO these days.

I do have the feeling that the US government was informed via side channels that being a sovereign country we could just stop paying for US troops present in Germany or that we could insist the the US reimburses the German government for some 42 years of construction costs that the USA has a contractual obligation to pay, but that Germany never enforced.

When the US asked for German troops to send to Vietnam they got the hospital ship Helgoland out of it:

He tells Europe NATO is old and dead, spend money on defense yourself (something I agree with), Germany answers "dream on", and now NATO is the best thing since sliced bread ?

He didn't say that NATO is "the best thing since sliced bread", just that it is "no longer obsolete". Trump's main objection to NATO was based on the fact that other member states fail to pay their fair share. Secretary Mattis, Vice-President Pence and others have continued to promote this policy. It seems Jens Stoltenberg agrees with President Trump on this point. So now NATO and the United States are working towards achieving Trump's goal, he doesn't need to speak in such stinging terms.

It's doubtful that the 2 % will happen during Trump's 4-8 years in office.

It's doubtful that the 2 % will happen during Trump's 4-8 years in office.

Whatever. The US doesn't spend 2% on "defense". What they spend money on is power projection conjoined with aggression. All the "Cold War US protecting their partners and friends" would have brought "glow by night" for the whole of Europe.

It's doubtful that the 2 % will happen during Trump's 4-8 years in office.

I agree that this is a long-term aim, but it is a long-term aim which is now underway. It had to start at some point, and if it takes a few years then so be it. So long as NATO continues to work towards other countries paying the full 2%, I think that the United States will be far more cooperative.

He is contradicting (lying) all the time, too, and none of his supporters seem to care. He said he would release his taxes and now he says "no one cares" (the marches across the country prove otherwise). He said he would put America first and now he lets foreign companies in first. He said he would be open and transparent and now he blocks visitor logs. His party demands that he be fiscally responsible but he has spent more on himself in two months than Obama did over eight years. He said leading would be his priority but he plays golf all the time.

Slate me for it if you must, but I have this sneaking suspicion that Trump did not expect to become President.

yes, he went through the motions of doing all the pre-election stuff and setting up the initial work to head towards an administration, but he never actually expected to beat Hillary. It would explain his actions in that he was not mentally prepared to assume the Presidency; nor is he able to communicate in the ways a President should. Even Dubya who could mangle his words like a boss was more coherent than Trump.

I think he ran for President because he wanted to and he was almost 70, so it was a case of now or never and he lost the gamble and actually ended up in the big chair. He likes doing the deal and saw the election campaign as being the biggest deal-making buzz he could find.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the man was like that before. But seriously, is there anything left he hasn't flip-flopped on ? Do his last supporters just like seeing him as president, whatever he says and does ?

He tells Europe NATO is old and dead, spend money on defense yourself (something I agree with), Germany answers "dream on", and now NATO is the best thing since sliced bread ?

China is raping us, protectionism is the way to go, I will tear up all free trade deals, etc., now all that is forgotten ?

Flip-flopping is nothing unusual for any political figure. One of the more prominent examples was the George H.W. Bush "read my lips: no new taxes" commitment. That failed pledge helped propel Bill Clinton to the presidency.

This is an answer to one of my points, the rest not so much. Are you seriously saying that the US will sell coal to China ?

I agree that you don't want a trade war with China. I have no problem if Trump changes all his crazy policies to reasonable ones. But the way he's doing it is surprising, don't you think ? A typical "negotiator" should sugarcoat things, or distract you somehow. Instead he reverses 3 major policies in 1 interview !

That's exactly what I'm saying. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/politics/ ... orea-coal/"Reuters, which first reported that the North Korean ships had turned back to their home port of Nampo, citing its Thomson Reuters Eikon financial information and analytics platform, also reported that China is increasing coal orders from the United States. No US coal was shipped to China between late 2014 and 2016, but 400,000 tons had been shipped there from the United States by late February, Reuters reported."

And nothing about Trump's actions would be surprising if you literally read the books he's written. From bad press (https://imgur.com/mabDTUP), to spelling mistakes on Twitter, to changing positions to gauge public reaction, to supporting doomed legislation (like Ryancare), it's all a part of the plan. Read The Art of the Deal; hang out with some Trump supporters on social media. See what they see, read what they read, try to feel what they feel, even if you don't agree with it yourself.

At least, if you actually want to understand the Donald, and not just engage in a holier-than-thou circlejerk, as I've noticed a large number of Europeans and Canadians (on all parts of the political compass) seem to enjoy doing.

Only that never happened. GCHQ never wiretapped Trump or his campaign. What you are falling for is spin control, trying to spin the fact that Trump campaign people did get caught calling wiretapped people that usually only traitors would call, into proof for made up allegations.

Here's a nice far-left article saying it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nks-russiaSo are The Guardian lying about that? In their own article they can't decide if GCHQ spied or if they didn't. Sounds a lot like spin to me, indeed. Just not the kind you were thinking of, since it doesn't fly with your biases.

please provide the list of all internet enabled microwave ovens available in the United States as of last year, thank you.All of those hacks afaik required physical access to the device, so Vault 7 proofs that Trump wasn´t spied on via Microwaves. Unless you want to claim that there was an illegal break in.

Are you deliberately missing the point, or just being dense because it's the only front on which you don't look silly?

"oh haha Kellyanne, so dumb thinking microwaves can spy on us!"Oh look, fridges with Android: http://gadgets.ndtv.com/others/news/sam ... ous-320610And we know Android can get hacked without effort by these agencies. Angry fools go around yelling "look how wrong she is!" and just draws attention to the fact minus one detail (it's TVs and fridges, not microwaves) - the story is totally true.

Only that about any sane person assumes he leaked those pages himself, and that those are just the best tax return during all of his career that he could find. For journalists this PR stunt of his, the only thing he seems even beginners competent in doing aside of lying, makes it only more interesting to look into his tax returns. If just few pages are good for him, anything else must be pure gold scoop wise.

So he deliberately overpaid tax one time 12 years ago in preparation for this moment, knowing he would leak the return to a biased media pundit who would run it anyway and make themselves look foolish. That sounds like the kind of foresight and getting to the opponent's head that we need in a world leader. Thanks for proving the point.

But then there are Trump fans that believe the most obvious lies, so Trump probably could make everyone happy by claiming he build the wall to Mexico, because you and other Trump fans would believe it and the tax payer would save billions of US$.

I actually have no real opinion on the wall. Except that it seems silly that the USA is the only developed nation on Earth which tolerates such widespread illegal migration.

4 years tops and in two years time he won't be able to get anything done, not having a majority anywhere left. Not that he does accomplish anything now, failed president that he is. Has there ever been a less effective president?

ISIS defeated within 30 days.....

Every single campaign promiss broken or failed. But hey, at least he is making George Bush jr. Look smart and educated.

Best regards Thomas

As you said he can't get anything done now. He has full control and is threatening a government shutdown if he can't get funding for a wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for and shutdown Obamacare by the end of the week.

This would be funny if there wasn't a real threat he will start a war to distract the press from his failings.

dfwjim1 wrote:

One thing to keep in mind is that every new president/prime minister of any country goes through a certain trial and error period as he/she adjusts to the realities of being office. Love him or hate him, Mr.Trump, in all fairness, is going to need time to get up and running as President.

That is fine but don't propose crazy timelines like you are going to defeat ISIS within 30 days because you look like a buffoon. Especially when the head of the department of Homeland security says that he has no idea how to stop domestic homegrown terrorism.

Here's a nice far-left article saying it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nks-russiaSo are The Guardian lying about that? In their own article they can't decide if GCHQ spied or if they didn't. Sounds a lot like spin to me, indeed. Just not the kind you were thinking of, since it doesn't fly with your biases.

if you think the Guardian is far-left then you really do need help.

It's a centrist, wet Liberal (capital L) supporting broadsheet popular with the hipster and mainstream crowd.

A meme? Really? Besides, all those jobs were being negotiated while Obama was still in office. It takes a while, not overnight, for these decisions to be made.

Here's a nice far-left article saying it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nks-russiaSo are The Guardian lying about that? In their own article they can't decide if GCHQ spied or if they didn't. Sounds a lot like spin to me, indeed. Just not the kind you were thinking of, since it doesn't fly with your biases.

There are some points that spy agencies are not allowed to talk about, so reporters must speculate. Not spin, but covering their butts.

please provide the list of all internet enabled microwave ovens available in the United States as of last year, thank you.All of those hacks afaik required physical access to the device, so Vault 7 proofs that Trump wasn´t spied on via Microwaves. Unless you want to claim that there was an illegal break in.

Are you deliberately missing the point, or just being dense because it's the only front on which you don't look silly?

"oh haha Kellyanne, so dumb thinking microwaves can spy on us!"Oh look, fridges with Android: http://gadgets.ndtv.com/others/news/sam ... ous-320610And we know Android can get hacked without effort by these agencies. Angry fools go around yelling "look how wrong she is!" and just draws attention to the fact minus one detail (it's TVs and fridges, not microwaves) - the story is totally true.[/quote]

He asks about microwave ovens and you talk about refrigerators because why? They are not the exact same thing. Kellyann made a point of talking about microwaves spying on us. Stick to the original quote.

So he deliberately overpaid tax one time 12 years ago in preparation for this moment, knowing he would leak the return to a biased media pundit who would run it anyway and make themselves look foolish. That sounds like the kind of foresight and getting to the opponent's head that we need in a world leader. Thanks for proving the point.

Because that was the only return released, an not even the whole return was released, we should just assume that was an over payment that one time? He needs to release his taxes like he said he would during the campaign.

Oh, but I keep forgetting: it is okay for this guy to lie. He gets a pass. Unlike the last president....

I actually have no real opinion on the wall. Except that it seems silly that the USA is the only developed nation on Earth which tolerates such widespread illegal migration.

It is not "tolerated" but there is so much land out there and only so many people who are capable of defending it. There is a wall. Drive along I-8 and you will see it. This is just another scam for the orange man to take more taxpayer dollars for himself and his company that he never separated himself from.

Can someone explain about 40% of American voters? I think that's a much better question and here's why I say that:

You can always find a snake oil salesman. Trump's true talent is that of a marketer, carnival barker style. He has little substance and those who voted for him, largely speaking, know it.

But who votes for him and why? I would posit we have a large chunk of Americans who embrace authoritarianism as a style of governance. True, they wrap themselves in the flag, but bottom line is they don't really embrace our form of government. Every time I hear a conservative accuse the court system of being "activist," every time the U.S. Congress refuses to even consider a SCOTUS nominee brought by the opposing party or imposing the nuclear option, every time I hear folks talk about punishing whistle blowers (and on and on and on), I realize we are dealing with folks who have no concept how our form of government is constructed, it's built-in system of checks and balances or its focus on fairness for all citizens.

It dawned on me a few years ago that although many people express wonder that a fascist state could ever emerge and butcher millions of people, many of my colleagues and even family members would have been the ones who marched S.S. officers up to people's homes and pointed and exclaimed, "Juden! Juden!."

I believe there's a core group of people who are inherently authoritarian in nature, and there might always be. These people want a big daddy to tell them what to do. They want to enforce an extreme form of conformity on all citizens. They want punishment to be meted out. No, actually, they derive pleasure in seeing punishment meted out to people who are not like themselves, who don't conform to their same rules and belief systems. They select other people to blame for their self-created problems.

This past election shines a pretty bright light on a huge chunk of the American population and it ain't pretty.

So don't focus your frustration on Trump; focus it on those who made Trump possible, who aided his rise to power. They are the ones to fear.

As for me, I'm waiting for the mothership to pick me up and take me back to my home planet...occupied by sane, kind, respectful people.

"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."- R.M. Rilke

You can always find a snake oil salesman. Trump's true talent is that of a marketer, carnival barker style. He has little substance and those who voted for him, largely speaking, know it.

The same could be said of Obama. There was a man with no real accomplishments on his resume, and a questionable education, but he sure knew how to give a speech.

mbmbos wrote:

But who votes for him and why? I would posit we have a large chunk of Americans who embrace authoritarianism as a style of governance. True, they wrap themselves in the flag, but bottom line is they don't really embrace our form of government.

Where do you get this crap about Trump being authoritarian? This has been a recurring mantra from the left for a couple of years now - where the hell does it come from? The only fascist-style mobs running around America attacking people they don't like these days are the Antifa/SJW crowd (who seem to have never learned the word 'irony'). What has Trump done to make you think that he wants to use authoritarian means?

mbmbos wrote:

Every time I hear a conservative accuse the court system of being "activist," every time the U.S. Congress refuses to even consider a SCOTUS nominee brought by the opposing party or imposing the nuclear option, every time I hear folks talk about punishing whistle blowers (and on and on and on), I realize we are dealing with folks who have no concept how our form of government is constructed, it's built-in system of checks and balances or its focus on fairness for all citizens.

Again, Obama went on an unprecedented rampage against whistleblowers, and just last month, the Democrats refused en masse to approve a highly qualified and respected jurist for the Supreme Court. Why do only conservatives deserve your ire? Why do you suddenly seem concerned about our form of government and the importance of it's built-in system of checks and balances or fairness, after all the abuses of the last administration, or of the Senate minority today? Traditionally a Supreme Court nominee was approved by both parties as long as the person was well qualified and respected by his peers, with a solid track history of success (i.e not having his rulings often overturned). It seems to me that the Democrats are the party who started to apply ideological litmus tests, starting around 30 years ago.

mbmbos wrote:

It dawned on me a few years ago that although many people express wonder that a fascist state could ever emerge and butcher millions of people, many of my colleagues and even family members would have been the ones who marched S.S. officers up to people's homes and pointed and exclaimed, "Juden! Juden!."

And today, those Americans being pointed at and attacked are labeled fascists, homophobes, transphobes etc etc. Free speech in our universities is openly under attack, the left is doing it on a regular basis, and I see very few democrats calling them out on it.

Now I will not sink to your level of trying to invoke visions of Nazi Germany saying that conservatives should worry about being butchered or sent to concentration camps. After all, we tend to be armed . But it seems pretty clear that there are many on the left - particularly the Antifa/SJW supporters - who see anyone who disagrees them as sub-human and unworthy of any sort of respect, dignity or physical safety. I don't see that kind of extremism among conservatives. Even the neo-nazi kooks on the Stormfront edge don't seem to display the sheer loathing and venom you see at a BAMN event.

mbmbos wrote:

I believe there's a core group of people who are inherently authoritarian in nature, and there might always be. These people want a big daddy to tell them what to do. They want to enforce an extreme form of conformity on all citizens. They want punishment to be meted out. No, actually, they derive pleasure in seeing punishment meted out to people who are not like themselves, who don't conform to their same rules and belief systems. They select other people to blame for their self-created problems.

And they are pretty much all on the left.

mbmbos wrote:

This past election shines a pretty bright light on a huge chunk of the American population and it ain't pretty.

Damn right. Look in the mirror.

mbmbos wrote:

So don't focus your frustration on Trump; focus it on those who made Trump possible, who aided his rise to power. They are the ones to fear.

If you broke into the country illegally, and committed felony fraud to stay (eg identity theft, use of someone else's SSN etc), you should be afraid of getting deported. If you are not one of them, again I ask you, what are you afraid of?

mbmbos wrote:

As for me, I'm waiting for the mothership to pick me up and take me back to my home planet...occupied by sane, kind, respectful people.

The same could be said of Obama. There was a man with ......... a questionable education......

What do you "question" about his education?

So much more important things in my post and you zero in on that? (Sigh)

OK, the fact that he managed to keep his university grades hidden all these years. He was touted by many (entirely without basis) as being the smartest man ever to be president, remember that? If his grades had been good doubtless they would have been published. Had they been mediocre, I would not see much reason to hide them - plenty of US presidents had a history of middling grades - no big deal. Which leaves the likelihood that Obama's grades were actually pretty bad, and that he basically was an affirmative action student.

There is no question of Obama's intelligence. There is no question of his erudition. For you to infer otherwise is to be disingenuous.

It sure sounds like you are a religious man - in fact a follower of cults. "No question"? Based on what? That he can speak well? Sorry, but there are plenty of well-spoken idiots walking around.

Obama has a track record of being promoted to certain positions because certain puppetmasters thought it would be nice to show how progressive they were. Editor of the Harvard Law Review, in spite of having published not one single article. How can you possibly say that was earned? It was affirmative action, pure and simple.

And the real racism/elitism in affirmative action is that there is a built-in presumption that whatever group the policy is in favor of is simply not capable of achieving things on their own. As a result it casts doubt on those who achieve something without any such help - they have to work extra hard to prove to everyone that they weren't just an affirmative action hire.

You can always find a snake oil salesman. Trump's true talent is that of a marketer, carnival barker style. He has little substance and those who voted for him, largely speaking, know it.

The same could be said of Obama. There was a man with no real accomplishments on his resume, and a questionable education, but he sure knew how to give a speech. )

The same thing could be said about Reagan. I mean what were his accomplishments. Other than being elected governor of California. Imagine that, an actor getting elected to the governorship of California. Shocking.

Seriously though here's the difference between Trump and Obama. Trump got to where he was because daddy had money, end of story.

The same could be said of Obama. There was a man with ......... a questionable education......

What do you "question" about his education?

So much more important things in my post and you zero in on that? (Sigh)

OK, the fact that he managed to keep his university grades hidden all these years. He was touted by many (entirely without basis) as being the smartest man ever to be president, remember that? If his grades had been good doubtless they would have been published. Had they been mediocre, I would not see much reason to hide them - plenty of US presidents had a history of middling grades - no big deal. Which leaves the likelihood that Obama's grades were actually pretty bad, and that he basically was an affirmative action student.

First, you have no inherent right to know his grades. Since he was a professor of Constitutional Law at a major university it would be fair to assume that his grades were decent.

Second, yes, I zeroed in on that particular statement you made because I wanted to see if you had any evidence for defaming President Obama.

You did not, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

You may think that much of the content of your posts are important.

Nothing is important when it comes from a defamer who makes statements masquerading as truth.

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

First, you have no inherent right to know his grades. Since he was a professor of Constitutional Law at a major university it would be fair to assume that his grades were decent.

He was a Lecturer, not a Professor. He had a specialty in "Community Organizing", aka Alinskyism, and lectured on it. You can't assume anything about his grades from that. I've seen lecturers who did not have a college degree, if they had expertise on a subject.

BobPatterson wrote:

Second, yes, I zeroed in on that particular statement you made because I wanted to see if you had any evidence for defaming President Obama.

You did not, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Why? You didn't prove shit, and I have a reasonable rationale for believing he was a poor student.

First, you have no inherent right to know his grades. Since he was a professor of Constitutional Law at a major university it would be fair to assume that his grades were decent.

He was a Lecturer, not a Professor. He had a specialty in "Community Organizing", aka Alinskyism, and lectured on it. You can't assume anything about his grades from that. I've seen lecturers who did not have a college degree, if they had expertise on a subject.

BobPatterson wrote:

Second, yes, I zeroed in on that particular statement you made because I wanted to see if you had any evidence for defaming President Obama.

You did not, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Why? You didn't prove shit, and I have a reasonable rationale for believing he was a poor student.

Seriously, I don't think you would recognize a reasonable rationale if you were smacked beside your head by one.

In any event, I will take factcheck.org and the statement by the Univ. of Chicago over your "reasonable rationale":

"UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists."

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

Has the man any self-esteem, doesn't he realize he's seen as a buffoon ?

Man, you've got the job, can't you drop the act and try and earn some respect ?

It's not an act, he has no self awareness, he's always been the same and always will be. Trump was widely recognized as a sh!tstain on humanity for decades--"Don the con" is not a new moniker. It's only in the last 1-2 years that his supporters have tried to rationalize his behavior. If you want to know what he'll do next, just look at what he's been doing for four decades. He's as reliable as Old Faithful, if it were a geyser of total bullsh!t.

opethfan wrote:

The first thing to note about President Trump is that he is a negotiator. Most people forget that, despite the fact that he literally wrote the book on negotiation,

What book is that? He hasn't written a word. And there's circumstantial evidence he's barely literate. There's overwhelming evidence that he's a terrible negotiator.

Channex757 wrote:

[if you think the Guardian is far-left then you really do need help.

It's a centrist, wet Liberal (capital L) supporting broadsheet popular with the hipster and mainstream crowd.

You have to remember that European far right is still sorta-left in the USA. Not much in the EU comes close to the lunacy of the US right.

There is no question of Obama's intelligence. There is no question of his erudition. For you to infer otherwise is to be disingenuous.

It sure sounds like you are a religious man - in fact a follower of cults. "No question"? Based on what? That he can speak well? Sorry, but there are plenty of well-spoken idiots walking around.

Obama has a track record of being promoted to certain positions because certain puppetmasters thought it would be nice to show how progressive they were. Editor of the Harvard Law Review, in spite of having published not one single article. How can you possibly say that was earned? It was affirmative action, pure and simple.

And the real racism/elitism in affirmative action is that there is a built-in presumption that whatever group the policy is in favor of is simply not capable of achieving things on their own. As a result it casts doubt on those who achieve something without any such help - they have to work extra hard to prove to everyone that they weren't just an affirmative action hire.

This is pure paranoia.

It is as plain as the nose on your face. You don't have to like Obama to know he is smart and accomplished. He is the puppet of no one; that is yet another fake narrative of the looney right wing.

"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."- R.M. Rilke

Trump's latest foreign policy gem: tells S. Korea to pay $1B or die in a nuclear holocaust. And oh yeah, our trade deal sucks and I'm tearing it up and oh by the way I told China you were one of their ancestral provinces so start learning Chinese.

In all seriousness the press i Korea today is going ape shit wondering just what kind of moronic asshole we voted into the White House. The man is a frigging clown. Watch Tillerson and Spacecakes try to walk this back over the next few days.

[Obama has a track record of being promoted to certain positions because certain puppetmasters thought it would be nice to show how progressive they were. Editor of the Harvard Law Review, in spite of having published not one single article. How can you possibly say that was earned? It was affirmative action, pure and simple.

In the case of the Harvard Law Review, the "puppetmasters" are your fellow students.

If you had just one-half an ounce of moral spine, you would do a little research and perhaps learn to stop spewing hate, racism and political nonsense.

This year there are more than 90 student editors. Being elected an editor by one's student peers is an honor. Read the list of names of this year's corps of editors. You will probably get at least some sense of the diversity of the student body of the law school.

Since articles written by students are unsigned, you have no way of knowing what student Obama wrote or did not write.

Are you manly enough to eat a little crow and admit that you are wrong?

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.